The Mathematics Educator
2010, Vol. 20, No. 1, 3–7
Guest Editorial…
Tensions Faced by Mathematics Professional Developers
Rachael Eriksen Brown
I recently worked on a research project in which I
was the facilitator of a middle school mathematics
professional development course, InterMath Rational
Numbers, and part of a research team examining
InterMath through a National Science Foundation-
funded project, Does It Work?: Building Methods for
Understanding Effects of Professional Development
(DiW). In my position as one of the InterMath
facilitators for the DiW project, I took a leading role in
tailoring the original InterMath syllabus to meet the
needs of the DiW project and the participating
teachers. While the course was a great experience for
me, it also brought up several tensions that, I suspect,
often exist in mathematics education at all levels. In
particular, there were several goals in the course that
did not appear to be in opposition, yet led to many
tensions in my actual practice. After describing my
experience I will pose several questions to the
mathematics education community about the
interwoven, yet sometimes conflicting, goals we often
have for our classes.
Four common recommendations for effective
professional development (PD) include a focus on
mathematical content, the use of activities that actively
engage teachers in learning, planning for sustained
time to learn, and developing a community of learners
(e.g., Garet et al., 2001; Guskey, 2003; Sowder, 2007).
However, little has been written about the tensions that
arise for the mathematics professional developer who
is attempting to balance content coverage with
elements of effective PD. I felt that the InterMath (IM)
syllabus gave me the time and opportunity to balance
all four PD recommendations. Hence, my goal was to
be as true to the modified syllabus as possible.
Nonetheless, as the weeks passed, the pressure to
examine all of the content topics started to come into
conflict with my desire to balance the other elements of
effective PD. I wanted the course to be successful not
only for the participants, but also for the DiW research
project. This meant I wanted to ensure quality content
Rachael Eriksen Brown is a mathematics program officer at the
Knowles Science Teaching Foundation. Her research interests
include community building and professional development.
coverage for the DiW research project, make the
course engaging, and support the development of a
community of learners for the teachers. In this
commentary, I use literature and personal experience to
describe the tensions between the different PD goals
and pose questions to the mathematics education
community for consideration about PD aimed at
building teachers’ mathematical content knowledge.
Effective Professional Development
Many studies have shown the need to meet with
teachers multiple times to have the greatest impact on
teacher learning and change in teaching practice. Garet
et al. (2001) found time span and contact hours were
important features in PD because both of these
measures had a positive influence on opportunities for
active learning and focus on content knowledge. Garet
et al. found “professional development is likely to be
of higher quality if it is both sustained over time and
involves a substantial number of hours” (p. 933).
Additionally, Banilower, Heck, and Weiss (2007)
found the effects of PD to be the greatest when contact
hours were high. Their results suggested that if contact
time was between 32 and 80 hours teachers would gain
the most from the PD. Besides contact hours, this
recommendation implies activities designed for
teachers should be high quality (focusing on active
engagement with content knowledge). Guskey (2003)
noted, “although effective professional development
clearly requires time, it also seems clear that such time
must be well organized, carefully structured, and
purposefully directed” (p. 12). Thus, the challenge for
professional developers is to ensure that sufficient time
is being spent on each mathematical concept. While the
IM course included 40 contact hours, well within the
recommended 32 to 80 hours, I still struggled with how
to distribute the time allotted to various mathematical
content.
An important guideline for PD is to focus on
specific content (Guskey, 2003; Sowder, 2007). Garet
et al. (2001) reported that PD focusing on content
knowledge “is more likely to produce enhanced
knowledge and skills” (p. 935). Research has also
supported the notion that focusing on improving
teachers’ content knowledge in PD has the potential to
3
Tensions in PD
positively impact student learning (Hill, Rowan, &
Ball, 2005). Cohen and Hill (2000) found empirical
evidence to support content knowledge as the focus of
PD in changing teachers’ practices, noting, “It seems to
help to change mathematics teaching practices if
teachers have even more concrete, topic-specific
learning opportunities” (p. 312).
Rational numbers is an important topic in middle
grades mathematics in the United States, and research
has shown teachers’ understandings of these concepts
are generally not strong (e.g., Ma, 1999; Post, Harel,
Behr, & Lesh, 1998). Because of this, the DiW team
focused the IM course on this topic. The assumption
was that an increase in teachers’ mathematical
knowledge for teaching would translate into a positive
impact on their teaching practices and their students’
understanding of mathematics. The team decided on
three themes for IM: referent unit, drawn
representations, and proportionality.1 Thus, consistent
with recommendations for effective PD, IM explicitly
focused on mathematical content.
For the professional developer, focusing on content
means planning activities where mathematics is the
focus, and supporting and encouraging teachers as they
engage in the mathematics that they teach. For
example, Kazemi and Franke (2004) studied a group of
teachers who used students’ written work as a
springboard for discussing their students’ responses to
a problem provided by the facilitator. The facilitator’s
role was to press teachers to focus on student strategies
and propose strategies the teachers did not suggest.
They observed that the facilitator was able to help
guide the direction of the meetings and assist the group
in maintaining a focus on students’ mathematical work.
My goal was to press the teachers to remain focused on
mathematics and actively engaged in the selected
mathematical tasks while also keeping them engaged
on working to develop community.
The need for PD to help activate knowledge in the
participants, not to deliver knowledge, was a common
theme in Wilson and Berne’s (1999) review of PD
literature. Active learning in PD includes working
together, sharing ideas and strategies, and becoming
reflective practitioners. In IM, teachers worked in pairs
and as a whole group on cognitively demanding tasks
1
Referent unit referred to the whole for a given quantity. Drawn
representations included array models, area models, single number
lines, double number lines, tables, and graphs. These
representations were intended to be used to reason about a given
problem, not just as a picture of the solution. Proportionality
referred to multiplicative reasoning in fraction and decimal
operations as well as situations involving direct and inverse
proportions.
4
focused on rational numbers. By using these tasks, we
were addressing many of the PD recommendations:
having the teachers engage with mathematically
demanding problems, work collaboratively, and do so
over a sustained period of time. Professional
developers “engage them [teachers] as learners in the
area that their students will learn in but at a level that is
more suitable to their own learning” (Wilson & Berne,
1999, p. 194). Thus the professional developer has to
support teachers in acknowledging their lack of
understanding on material they are responsible for
teaching, while motivating them to engage with the
mathematics they are to learn. Without teachers being
willing to engage as learners, IM would have been a
failure because the design of the course was dependent
on the teachers working together on tasks with little to
no direct instruction from me.
Borko and Putnam (1995) noted successful PD
provides “opportunities for teachers to construct
knowledge of subject matter and pedagogy in an
environment that supports and encourages risk taking
and reflection” (p. 59). This characteristic includes
developing an intellectual space where teachers can
make public their understandings, as well as
misunderstandings. Community building activities are
common experiences in PD that supports meaningful
interactions between participants and the facilitator,
and building community is an important component of
effective PD. In Kazemi and Franke’s (2004) study, the
teachers began to develop norms about what it means
to teach and learn from each other based on their
examination of student work. This development of
norms was related to the community building of the
group and their active engagement in examining
students’ mathematical work. Active learning lends
itself to creating a community of practice as teachers
are given opportunities to explain, compare, and
contrast mathematical strategies for solving tasks as a
group.
Because of my passion for community
development, this was important to me as I planned
IM. The design of the modified syllabus for the IM
Rational Numbers course was especially important
because the pacing and tasks allowed me time and
opportunity to build a community. For example, there
was time at the beginning of the course for me to lead a
discussion about the expectations participants had
about IM, myself as the facilitator, and themselves as
participants. In addition, I felt passionate about all the
tasks and the sequencing of the concepts. When
learners are producing high-quality materials and are
engaged in mathematical discussion, the facilitator is,

at least implicitly, working to build a community. I felt
confident that the syllabus would allow for both
adequate time on mathematically-focused activities and
community building, hence balancing all four
recommendations.
Tensions
As the facilitator I felt a constant tension between
my intentions of increasing participant’s mathematical
content knowledge (the explicit goal of IM) and
building a mathematical community of practice (my
personal goal as facilitator). Balancing community
building and pushing the participants’ mathematical
knowledge was a challenge. I also felt tremendous
responsibility to keep the teachers satisfied with the
experience in order to continue to motivate them to
engage deeply with the mathematics together. For me,
part of the satisfaction would be to continually relate
what they were experiencing to their own classroom
practices. This meant being explicit about how my
actions could be replicated in a classroom of middle
grades students. Finally, the pacing of the PD and my
knowledge of teachers’ understanding provided a
tricky dilemma for me to navigate.
One of the principal ways I tried to build
community was by fostering productive conversations
as we debriefed our mathematical work on tasks in the
whole group setting, but I rarely had enough time for
all the tasks and conversations I had planned. Thus, I
was faced with making decisions about doing more
tasks to meet the goal of developing content
knowledge versus doing fewer tasks and having longer
conversations about them to meet my goal of building
community. The tension between building the teachers’
mathematical knowledge and building community was
overwhelming at times and made me feel like I was
unable to be successful on either front. In one of my
journal entries I wrote, “There is so much that we
needed to talk about and do but we didn’t have time.
I’m concerned because we move on to division of
fractions next. I feel like I’m leaving many participants
with holes in their knowledge.”
Because of the time crunch and the tug I felt
between debriefing the mathematics and debriefing our
conversations, I never explicitly addressed my
community building efforts with the participants.
Although I praised the group at the conclusion of a
good conversation, we never discussed what made
those conversations special in terms of either building
a community or developing mathematical knowledge.
Despite my efforts to balance building content
knowledge with building community, there were times
Rachael Eriksen Brown
when one goal dominated my decision-making in our
class meetings.
This leads to another tension I faced about how
explicit to be about what I was asking them to do as the
facilitator and the success we were having in learning
about rational numbers. Clearly, I struggled to do this
related to community. But the time limits also
impacted how often we could discuss how what they
were experiencing could be implemented in their
classrooms. This was important to me because I saw it
as a component of active learning. For example, the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)
has been promoting a vision of the ideal mathematics
classroom as one where teachers “establish and nurture
an environment conducive to learning mathematics
through the decisions they make, the conversations
they orchestrate, and the physical setting they create”
(NCTM, 2000, p. 18). One goal of mine was to provide
an example of learning in this environment. How
explicit should I be about how I did this? In the end,
there was little time during class to have these
conversations. By not finding the time to discuss our
own practices as a community, the teachers were
unable to reflect as a group on the behaviors and
actions that supported our development of a nurturing,
mathematical environment. When working with the
teachers in small groups, I would ask about their
classrooms and students and suggest that what I was
doing could be done in their classrooms. Reflection
components were part of the course; teachers were
asked to do a ticket out the door after each class
meeting and were interviewed by a researcher each
week about the course. Through these reflections,
teachers did think about my role as the facilitator. For
example, one teacher said, “She has the approach that
you know the answers, there are no right or wrong
answers. But everyone should be able to learn from
each other. And she tries to make sure that she is not
the center focal point, is the center focal point, that it is
on us, the students” (King, Week 8). The teachers,
however, rarely made connections between what they
were experiencing and their own classrooms in the
phone interviews or in our class discussions.
IM engaged teachers in exploring high cognitive
demand tasks related to rational numbers, and at times
these tasks pushed the participants to their
mathematical limits, which was often uncomfortable.
This discomfort was not surprising, as research has
shown that exploring rational number concepts is often
an uncomfortable enterprise (Armstrong & Bezuk,
1995; Ma, 1999). The discomfort had the potential to
inhibit our work together because participants might
5
Tensions in PD
have been reluctant to expose the gaps in their
knowledge to their peers, particularly because those
peers taught in the same district. The participants,
however, worked through this discomfort and grew to
expect it when working together in IM. For example,
one task the teachers were asked to work on had a
lower cognitive demand. The participants noticed the
change in the nature of the task because they expressed
concern that the task felt too easy, and they were sure
they had missed something. The tension I then faced
was determining whether to continue to follow the
syllabus despite my growing awareness of teachers’
misconceptions about rational numbers and their
willingness to continue to engage deeply with the
mathematics. This tension speaks to the
recommendation for sustained time to learn. If I forged
ahead, how would that affect the quality of our
mathematical work? If I remained focused on the same
content, would the teachers continue to be actively
engaged in the material? This tension was complicated
by the fact that the PD was being offered as part of a
research project and the district had been promised a
specific course. Thus, as a larger team, the decision
was made to continue following the pace of our
syllabus.
Concluding Remarks
Despite the tensions I felt as the facilitator, IM was
a success. Not only did the teachers report being happy
with the experience, but the increase in the average
score on the pre-assessment and the post-assessment of
their mathematical knowledge for teaching rational
numbers was statistically significant. More
specifically, nine participants had a significant increase
in their scores. In addition to the quantitative data,
there was qualitative evidence that teachers grew in
their understanding of the three themes of IM—
referent unit, drawn representations, and proportion—
and that the class was able to form a community of
practice. Further analysis is being conducted on other
aspects of teacher learning in IM.
I was able to learn more about myself as an
educator and about the challenges faced by facilitators
as they attempt to focus on increasing mathematical
knowledge and community building. The tensions
faced by the professional developer who is balancing
the development of mathematical knowledge and
following guidelines for effective PD are not trivial. I
would like to challenge the mathematics education
research community to seriously consider the potential
tensions faced by the mathematics educator who finds
6
herself managing these dual, sometimes opposing,
goals. I pose the following questions for consideration:
1. How does this tension influence the
professional development experience?
2. What can we learn about teaching, in general,
from our experiences as facilitators?
3. What can we learn about community building?
4. What does the facilitator learn through this
experience? How does it impact how she
conducts the PD?
5. How can these understandings be translated to
classroom teachers’ experiences?
As our understanding of PD grows (including
learning of teachers, fidelity of programs, and essential
features for effectiveness), we need to consider how
the simple decision to facilitate the PD being examined
influences all who are involved in the experience.
Acknowledgments
The work reported here is supported by the National
Science Foundation under grant number DRL-0633975. The
results reported here are the opinions of the author and may
not reflect those of NSF. I wish to thank the Does It Work
team for their support and particularly Chandra Orrill, Soojin
Lee, and Andrew Izsák for help with collecting data and
supporting instruction. Additionally, I would like to thank
Denise Spangler Mewborn, Sandra Geisler, Katy Ulrich, and
Allyson Hallman for their help with earlier drafts of this
commentary.
References
Armstrong, B. E., & Bezuk, N. (1995). Multiplication and division
of fractions: The search for meaning. In J. T. Sowder & B. P.
Schappelle (Eds.), Providing a foundation for teaching
mathematics in the middle grades (pp. 85–120). Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Banilower, E. R., Heck, D. J., & Weiss, I. R. (2007). Can
professional development make the vision of the standards a
reality? The impact of the National Science Foundation’s local
systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 375–395.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1995). Expanding a teacher’s
knowledge base: A cognitive psychological perspective on
professional development. In T. R. Guskey & A. M.
Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education:
New paradigms and practices (pp. 35–65). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and
classroom performance: The mathematics reform in
California. Teachers College Record, 102, 294–343.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon,
K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective?
Results from a national sample of teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.

Guskey, T. R. (2003). Analyzing lists of the characteristics of
effective professional development to promote visionary
leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 87(637), 4–20
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’
mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement.
American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371–406.
Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. L. (2004). Teacher learning in
mathematics: Using student work to promote collective
inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 203–
235.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics:
Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in
China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles
and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Rachael Eriksen Brown
Post, T., Harel, G., Behr, M., & Lesh, R. (1988). Intermediate
teachers knowledge of rational number concepts. In E.
Fennema (Ed.), Papers from first Wisconsin symposium for
research on teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 194–
219). Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
Sowder, J. T. (2007). The mathematical education and development
of teachers. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of
research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 157–
223). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the
acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of
research on contemporary professional development. Review
of Research in Education, 24, 173–209.